In short: "Mommy, May I?? May I carry concealed in my car, please? May I carry while walking on the street, may I, please??"
Reprise from a 2006 post:
The people have the right to keep and bear arms
for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any
other lawful purpose. --Wisconsin Constitution, 25th Amendment
In a decision released today, the ShirleyCourt decided that carrying a concealed weapon in your car when you are carrying large amounts of cash in the middle of the night is not "a right" for "security."
...ShirleyCourt decided that since the tavern-owner in the above case did not demonstrate that his location was dangerous, nor that he really, really believed he needed the weapon for purposes of self-defense, and since the tavern-owner did not keep the weapon IN his place of business, he couldn't possibly have any real serious concerns about carrying $X,000.00 in cash around in the middle of the night.
Here's the best part:
The ShirleyCourt, in utter disregard for reality, found that 'there is no reason to distinguish between one's home, business, or car,' but simultaneously held that a Wisconsin citizen does NOT:
have a colorable claim of a constitutional privilege to carry a concealed weapon in his or her vehicle for security.
Lemmesee, heah, Gomer. You can have a weapon in your house, which 'cannot be distinguished from your car,' but you CANNOT have a weapon in your car.
In ShirleyLand, "hav[ing] the right to bear arms...for security.." does NOT apply to situations in which someone may actually need security, unless you will be in "imminent danger" and can prove it (in advance) of actually BEING "in imminent danger."
Crooks, in dissent, summarized the "Mommy May I" rule-of-Shirley:
The majority, instead of striking down the statute, attempts, yet again, to do the job of the legislature and to judicially rewrite Wis. Stat. § 941.23.